>> bill: the o'reilly factor is on. tonight. >> if you are a u.s. person. the nsa cannot listen to your telephone calls and the nsa cannot target your emails. >> bill: president obama says the u.s. government is not reading private emails. the nsa whistleblower says they are. who do you believe? charles krauthammer will weigh in. >> in particular obviously a crucial way of reproducing whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege. >> bill: far left university of pennsylvania teacher says opposition to late term abortion is driven by white racism. incredible. we will show you what's going on.

>> money for heroin. >> also tonight undercover reporter exposes fraud in 2 billion-dollar telephone entitlement. largely paid for by americans. this situation might shock you. >> people on drugs. they get this phone and they go get $40. >> caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. the factor begins right now. ♪ hi, i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. do you believe president obama? that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. there is no question the president is in trouble. areasonable doubt doing in new cnn poll mr. obama's job rating is plummeting. 45% approve down 8 points

in the last month and 54% disapprove. the president gave an interview to charlie rose. >> what i can say unequivocally is that if you are a u.s. person, the nsa cannot listen to your telephone calls and the nsa cannot target your emails. >> and have not? >> and have not. they cannot and have not by law and by rule. >> bill: as you may know the nsa whistleblower edward snowden says u.s. intelligence is listening to phone calls and reading emails. but snowden has provide nod hard evidence of that so talking points is suspicious of snowden. that being said, mr. obama is now on the record and if, if, evidence is produced, that any u.s. intelligence agency is reading emails without a specific warrant, mr. obama could very well be impeached. that's how important his statement to mr. rose really is there is no going

back now. president obama says flat out no one is listening to phone calls or reading emails without a specific warrant to do so. today the same question was asked of the director of the nsa general keith alexander. >> does the nsa have the ability to listen to americans' phone calls or read emails under these two programs. >> no. we do not have that authority. >> does the technology exist at the nsa to flip a switch by some analysts to listen to americans' phone calls or read their emails? >> no. >> bill: without snowden or another whistleblower producing hard evidence to contradict the general and the president, the snooping story will likely fade away in the coming months. but the irs story will not fade away because that scandal is getting worse. and you may have noticed the president has not defined the irs scandal the way he did with the nsa snooping allegations. i'm not saying president obama did anything wrong

with the irs deal. i'm saying people don't know who the bad guys are but we do know there are bad guys. so summing up. talking points is giving president obama the benefit of the doubt on the nsa deal because this snowden guy looks shady to me. and that's the memo. now for the top story tonight. reaction, joining us from washington, fox news political analyst charles krauthammer. and you say? >> i say, bill, you have been right now two weeks in a row. this is like halle's comet once every 676 years. i will take advantage. i will agree with you, i was never shocked or upset by the revelations about the phone and the mapping of the phone calls. remember, we had that debate a decade ago. this is not new news. this is old news. we actually had a debate as to whether the phone companies who at the it beginning of the decade right after 9/11 provided the information without even a warrant whether or not the phone companies would be given immunity

from lawsuits. and they were. we have had this debate and there is no reason to doubt that they are not listening in on the phone call without a second approach to the chords. to get a court order. >> you say there is no reason to doubt. we he have got a guy in hong kong running around who worked for the nsa who did this kind of work who says the opposite. that they are snooping all over the place without the correct warrants from fisa. >> but, bill, this isn't just he said, she said in a place where nobody can see anything. we have had by the testimony of everybody, billions of calls in this widespread mapping operation where you record the phone call who called whom. what number called whom. we have had billions of these. have we had one case which has been validated of

unauthorized listening in on a conversation? >> bill: not that i know of. >> has anyone sued? has anyone leaked? has anyone come. >> bill: you wouldn't necessarily know, charles. the only way you know that is if someone inside the intelligence agency then leaks what they got from the listening if they did indeed did it out to somebody like the irs did. that's the only way -- >> -- if there is somebody engaged in recreational listening, that's one thing. and it might be impossible to find one guy out of the thousands who does that and if you find them, he gets canned. but if you are listening in in order to harass somebody to blackmail somebody, we would know about it. it would have a consequence. if they listened in on you, they would have stuff on you. there would be a purpose. you would hear about it and you would tell other people. the fact that we have not heard anything of that sort in a decade i think is evidence on the side of the president and on the side of keith alexander who is the head of nsa who says we

do not listen in unless we get a court order with probable cause. and that's the way it's always been. >> some terrorist in yemen calls kansas city and then you get the number and you know that you are already track the guy in yemen so he calls you and picks up the phone and the fisa judge says sure, you can listen. in you know what? i give them the benefit of the doubt, the president and the general because there isn't evidence not to. and that's what fair people do. even if you don't agree with their policies, whatever, if there is no evidence to the contrary, you give them the benefit of the doubt. they come on, they say what they say. the president with charlie rose looked a little tentative. i'm not saying he is not telling the truth. he wasn't like, boom, you know, this hasn't happened. it's an outrage this guy snowden saying. this this is a disgrace. he didn't do that. he is much more laid back, i guess is the word. and i would expect a little indignation from a mans who

whole administration is tottering now one allegation after another, wouldn't you? >> i think you are right. if you watched him, he only wanted them to say they can't. >> bill: rose forced him to say they haven't. >> he forced him to say they haven't. the reason is if you are president, you don't know every detail. if it turns out that there was unauthorized or undiscovered listening, in alexander would probably take the hit but the president would look as if he were covering up. you never want to say stuff if you can't be 100% sure. but i don't think that's a coverup. the way i think he was covering up with benghazi, the way obviously is with the irs in the sense that he sort of washes his hands and pretends it has nothing to do. >> bill: he doesn't even address the irs. >> exactly. >> bill: doesn't even talk about it. >> he thinks he can hide on this. i think the real issue isn't was there a conspiracy in which obama or his underlings

instructed the irs agents to go after conservatives. i think it's a conspiracy in plain sight. obama made speeches in the summer is of 2010. where he openly talked about these shadowy conservative groups who are he said not only a threat to democrats but a threat to democracy itself. he said they could be hiding foreign donors. they could be hiding all kinds of things. well, that's a signal. it's not a conspiracy. but it's clearly authorization principle and it's kind of sending the message, you know, if you want to please the president, you want to please the administration, go after the tea parties. >> bill: all right, charles. thanks as always. we appreciate it next on the rundown, stossel says he is not upset about the alleged nsa snooping even though is he a libertarian and he will tell us why. later, college students against fox news. >> just so we make sure that fox is telling the truth and not spinning

their vicious lies. do you want to help us in that? >> yes, please. >> bill: those reports after these messages.

>> bill: stossel matter somethingment tonight. our pal john has written a column for foxnews.com saying is he not all that vup set about the nsa day even though many libertarians are here to explain his somewhat convoluted process john stossel. explain. >> maybe i should be upset but i just can't get there i figure my privacy is already blown. my employer can read my emails. >> bill: at work. >> at work. >> bill: they can't at home. >> depending on whether i do it through work. >> bill: right through a machine given to you by fnc. right. >> bill: but everybody. >> fox news knows all kinds of things about me. google can know every site

that i have checked out. >> bill: i don't know how they know that though. i know if you go to bill o'reilly.com, i'm a tech idiot i freely admit it and so does stossel. if you go to bill o'reilly.com we know not your name but how many people come in and what feature they go the no spin zone news or back stage conversation or message board. we can easily when they come in track that. google and aol, the billions of hits they get all over the place, i don't think they are tracking that are they? >> if they wanted to get you, they could. >> yeah, assign some guy to look at what you were doing on their site. why waste the time on that? >> well, i agree. and i am not worried anymore. i figure everything is out there. i try not to have secrets. but there is a difference in that i don't have to use google or facebook. >> bill: right. >> i just have one country. google and facebook can't lock me up or kill me. >> bill: they can -- if there was unscrupulous

person working there they could feed stuff out that could hurt or embarrass you which is what happens all the time now. >> except google would lose business. bing would start to thrive. government can one government. we have to worry more about them. >> bill: your hypothesis on this dopey foxnews.com thing because your privacy is shattered you don't care what the government is snooping on you? >> and i have been called a trarlt to the libertarian cause. >> bill: you are a tramplet you are revolting. >> i'm so angie at -- angry at so much of what my government does. >> bill: as an american citizen i don't want washington to have the capability or the legality to come in and look at my private communications, be they on the phone or on email or texting. >> even if you are a terrorist? >> it's a different situation. if i'm a suspected. >> that's what they're looking. >> if i'm a suspected terrorist probable cause, then the judge can get a specific warrant. i have got no problem with that at all.

i don't have a problem with bund lick where the calls are going from as long as they are not listening to them because i know that's anti-terror tool. we saw what the irs did with it. don't you know what they did the with power. >> the sirs a bigger scandal. >> bill: right. the nsa could do that they have the capacity to do it. >> i don't know why i'm trusting them that they're really are looking for terrorists. >> bill: i don't trust them. >> you don't trust that they're looking for terrorists. i trust 95% of the nsa look at the snowden creep. there are all kinds of creeps. you can sell information about stossel or o'reilly for a lot of money. >> i'm more angry that they give security clearance to 4 million people and say this is a secret. >> bill: they have got to sign airplane pa. that's why this snowden is going to be prosecuted. they get him, is he is going to do 10 years. >> if they catch the person who is leaking. >> bill: how many more press conferences can he have? don't they know where he

is? throwing doughnuts out to people. come on, get him. there is john stossel, everybody, convoluted is the word we used. directly ahead professor at the university of pennsylvania, big ivy league school says that white power is at the heart of the abortion debate. this is so far far off the chart i can't even tell

>> bill: incredible display of racial hatred on national television. this woman who teaches edge qulish at the university of pennsylvania, ivy league school, says that if you oppose late term abortion and you are white, you might be supporting white supremacy. >> so i think this is a

kind of moral panic, a fear of end of whiteness that we have been seeing a long time and i think obama's extension of president kind of symbolizes to a certain degree. this is one response to that sense that there is a decreasing white majority in the country and that women's bodies and white women's bodies in particular are obviously crucial way of reproducing whiteness, white pressroom supremacy, white privilege. >> bill: amazing display of bigotry and insensitivity to the abortion issue. leslie marshall. you are a liberal, leslie. you know, you hear that fromner liberal, and you say? >> well, i say one, why didn't anybody on the panel react to that? i saw one woman's eyebrows go up. >> bill: do you want to answer your own question? you know the question to that -- answer to that question. give the folks the answer, to leslie. >> i didn't see another african-american on the

panel to be honest with you, bill. i think that some people fear touching that when they are not a part of that racial group. >> bill: all right. i mean, look, the forum in which this college professor appeared as long as you are demonizing people who are conservative or pro-life or whatever, you can say anything you want there. it will never be challenged. all right? that's what they do but this is so racially charged that and most people should understand that the controversy now is about late term abortion. 20 weeks and up. it's not about roe v. wade. it's not about access to abortion with planned parenthood, it's about after viability. that's what they are talking about. this woman has the gull to go on national television and say if you oppose that then and you are white, you are doing it because of you want to a white supremacist

society. this is just sick, is it not? >> i have to say, bill, you know and you have done talk radio, and i will have some really crazy people who carry around a portable grassy no with them call my snow and i have never heard of this. i have never seen a blog or web site i did check everywhere on something like this or a kind of theory. my understanding from pro-life individuals regardless of their color, whites as well, whether it be for first trimester or late term abortion is that they consider life to begin at conception. they consider abortion to be murder. that has nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin. having said that separately do i think and do i know that yes white aaron resistance, skin heads and et cetera are fearful that minorities are populating faster than whites and sometime in the next couple of decades whites will no longer be the majority, yes. to tie into that abortion, absolutely crazy. i have never heard it before today. >> bill: for a college

professor at an ivy league university to come on and say the reason that people oppose late term abortion is because they want white women to give birth more so they are not overtaken by the minority community which is what is happening in the u.s.a. to put that forth. i mean, you are just saying to yourself where does it end? do youize how offensive that is to people of conscience who, as you rightly said, believe that human life and d.n.a. shows that it begins at conception now. there is human d.n.a. present. all right? and now you are being your motives are being impugned because you say you want a white majority. this is the lowest. i'm surprised these people have the gull to go on and say. this i really am. i'm shocked that the university of pennsylvania professor would have the absolute gull to go on national television and say it. i will give you the last word. >> well, when you said offensive, bill. i do think it's offensive

to tie those issues together. we do have serious race relation issues in this country. i think as an african-american woman her saying that it can actually hurt some of those efforts in this country. we already have enough anger with the polarization of the issue of abortion. we need to keep what that issue is about and it is the argument over when life begins in the matter of choice. >> bill: all right, leslie, thanks as always. plenty more as the factor moves along this evening. two undercover stories. first one involving 2 billion-dollar government entitlement program that subsidizes phone calls. you won't believe what you are going to see. then an undercover sting at george mason university involving hatred of fox news. >> a lot of folks don't like fox news. do you watch it any at all? >> i avoid it. >> you avoid it. >> jon stewart. >> bill: we

ripping off the measure taxpayer, as you know the nation owes $17 trillion disaster. one of the reasons for that is the incredible debt that the federal government runs up by wasting money. here is angood example. there is a program called lifeline that causes $2.2 billion a year. that entitlement provides a discount on phone service for low income americans. also some phone companies give away telephones as part of the lifeline situation. in 2008 the lifetime budget was 822 million bucks. last year that had risen to

an astounding 2.2 billion under the obama administration. recently a whistleblower group called vertose truth in latin. one of the undercover stops philadelphia. >> from blsh >> bill: so the free phone can be sold for drugs and lifeline worker doesn't seem to care. same thing happened in minneapolis. >> people on drugs. they get this phone and they go get $40. '

>> bill: 2.2 billion a lot of laughs. with us james o'keefe the project of vertose. fraud and save democracy. >> bill: first of all a little confusing here. these telephones aren't given away by the government. they are given away by private phone companies that are tied into this lifeline program? explain that. >> that's right there is a federal program called lifeline receive about $2.2 billion a year. they get corporate subsidies to companies like tera come and this program in philadelphia stand up wireless. they in turn get the money and give out the phones using your dollars. it's fees on your cell phone bill through your fee surcharges on your phone bill. >> bill: the government gives tax money to these phone companies and they can do whatever they want with the money but they have to subsidize poor people in getting wireless

communications, right? >> it's intended to help poor people what we in fact found it hurts poor people and might benefit wealthy individuals. these ceos and donors that receive money from this program people like carlos slim who received $10 per phone each phone given out. >> bill: how does slim who is the world's richest man how did he benefit by this program? >> he gets $10 per phone because is he one of the recipients of the phone. >> bill: federal money is coming into slim wants company. >> right. >> bill: he gets 10 bucks and he institutes the lifeline program as he sees fit. he gives discounted phone call rates and things like that? >> right. >> bill: all right. now, when you do something like this, you are always going to be accused of slight the poor and they should have this and you have got to lift them up and you say what? >> i say like all the things we have done at project verotos. medicaid fraud, acorn

fraud. voter fraud, all -- every time we do an investigation it forces a response. forces people to resign. >> bill: philadelphia company that fired all the guys that said it's okay to sell the phone for hire win. they are fired. >> every single person we sell the phone for drugs. i think you are absolutely on target. i these these programs are totally out of control. you became famous convicted of misdemeanor for breaking into senator landrieu's office. your parole was up. enough to you are a free man. >> free man. actually probation. >> bill: you didn't go to prison. you write about it in the book but you defend yourself. you say you didn't commit any crime? >> yeah. the book the break through book is incredible because it takes iewn journey through all the things we have been through. the government destroyed my evidence and charged me with a crime i didn't commit. >> bill: why didn't you plea it out? >> it was hard.

a lot of obstacles. >> bill: couldn't get pro bono lawyer. >> very challenging. they destroyed our evidence and that's not the only thing we dealt with we did voter fraud distinction last year. there is no doubt you are a target, a high profile guy. going around embarrassing the liberal entitlement programs, they are coming after you. i don't know if i would have played that out. if you really felt you were not guilty of a crime. >> going back i never would have an tisz pated they would have restricted their travel for three years. >> they will come after you. >> we had reason dog was leaking to members of the media book is about my journey and the price you have to pay. it's not going to be some politician or some media figure who is going to save us. probably going to be normal citizens paying a price and ection posing fraud. sunlight is the best weapon against fraud and

corruption. >> bill: book is break through, james thank you for coming in. >> thanks for having me. >> bill: whether the supreme court will legalize gay marriage. also update on the zimmerman trial. legal is next.

>> bill: thanks for staying with us i'm bill o'reilly. in the is it legal segment tonight three hot topics, beginning with supreme court who will rule soon on gay marriage. here now kimberly guilfoyle and lis wiehl. all right, wiehl, even i can understand it. dumb it down. >> bring it way down. >> bill: what is the supreme court going to rule on? >> the supreme court is ruling on two laws. one is a federal law, the doma defense of marriage act passed in 1996 under president -- >> bill: going to rule the defense of marriage act unconstitutional by bill clinton. >> going to strike it down.

>> bill: against one group. >> equal protection, due process. those are going to be the grounds. they are not going to say that you have a fundamental right to gay marriage. but they are going to say you can't discriminate against homosexuals. >> bill: or commune people? >> we are not talking about commune people, now are we? >> bill: i don't know. if they're going to make a ruling that's just about homosexuals? >> well then maybe commune people is next. >> bill: but you don't know. >> there is proposition 8 out in california a ban on gay marriage overturned by the court i think the ninth circuit held it was overturned the supreme court probably about 5-4 split is going to say ninth circuit your ruling is upheld means the ban goes. >> voted against gay marriage but the california supreme court threw that vote out then they took that into federal court, correct? say california supreme court can't nullify a vote of the people and now you are both telling me would full phi the vote of the

people in california. is that what you are saying? >> that's correct. prop 8 and doma to be consistent. what i think then is going to happen is they are not going to say that you have an absolute right to same sex marriages. this is going to in effect produce that ruling. >> bill: bottom line on why the supreme court and they may not do this because i think it's very hard for a court to overturn a straight vote of the people. the bottom line is they are saying you are variety violating their civil rights. they are buying that argument. california is just a little bit different there because what the supreme court can say is, look, you can't give a right as you did as the court did. you can't give a right to marriage and then take it away willy-nilly. >> bill: a bunch of crap. >> that's the way they are going to get around it. that's the mechanism they will use. >> bill: getting around anything. it should be upholding the constitution of the united states. not trying to find loopholes. >> bill: that's not making a firm ruling to definitively say whether the right to same sex marriage. >> it doesn't matter. people in california voted.

they are nullifying their vote on very flimsy constitutional grounds. >> whether the vote is a state or a national, the vote should be sacrosang unless. >> it's unconstitutional that's what the courts are there for. >> they have to prove in their ruling that it is unconstitutional. >> they will. >> it's going to have to be carefully crafted. >> i don't think it -- >> bill: i think it's what you just said they are going to find a loophole. >> i know they. >> i don't think due process and equal protection are a loophole. zimmerman trial real fast guilfoyle where are we now? >> day seven of jury selection. 32 yors have been selected in the quote pre-trial publicity round what they have agreed to is to get to the number had 0. once they get to 40 potential jurors they will do the more specific voir dire process. >> bill: audio recording controversy what's that. >> audio recording unclear

who was on, owas the aggressor. >> bill: they want to bring in experts. >> right. >> bill: each side bring in experts one side say it was zimmerman and the other side travon martin. >> bill: finally in new jersey the cops want to be able to take your cell phone if you are involved in an accident, take it away from you, analyze the cell phone to see if you were on the phone at the time of the accident and you say. >> can't do it too broad. >> can't do it. even an investigation. >> if you get a warrant. if you get a grand jury subpoena or something like that. >> bill: a warrant they should be able to get in a serious accident if somebody is there. >> they can sue very helpful. >> behind out if the person was committing a crime at the time of the accident. >> without the warrant look at the phone, right? >> that's a way to do it where you can take the phone. >> bill: wait for the warrant and look at the phone. i involved it. that's what we do.

if there is a traffic accident and there is damage and injury, you want to find out who was at fault. >> if you have a warrant, that's fine. you just need to get that. >> bill: take the phone, put it in the drawer, get the warrant and you have got it? >> the way they have it written is overbroad. the way you are saying pus in a safeguard for 40 amendment rights. i should just be in charge of all of this. >> by the way you are agreeing with the aclu on this one. >> you are. >> >> bill: i'm not ideological. i will agree with whoever is right. which is why i rarely agree with you two? >> what do you do -- ladies, thank you, in a moment fox news college students and undercover sting. don't miss this one up next.

>> bill: back of the book segment tonight, conservative group called the media research center recently went undercover to ask some students at george mason university in virginia to sign a petition against fox news. the fictitious petition asked president obama to approve listening in on private conversations of all fox news employees and their families. absurd? of course. but here is what happened. >> just so we make sure that fox is telling the truth, not spinning their vicious lies, do you want to help us in that? >> yes, please. >> all right. >> i'm going to, yeah. >> are you going to take a pass? >> i don't want to. >> great. >> i hate fox news! >> yeah, me too. >> i mean, fox news is the worst. >> okay. yeah. great. a lot of folks don't like fox news. do you watch it any at all? >> i avoid it. >> you avoid it. >> i watch it through jon stewart. >> as much as i dislike fox news i agree with their freedom of speech to say what they like.

>> it's all my grandmother watches so i gotcha. >> what is your grandmother like. >> old and conservative and set in her ways. >> without a warrant? >> right. but it's fox news. >> yeah, so what? that's -- >> all right, man. >> bill: here now to comment monica crowley and alan colmes. just the stats here and then the guy who was getting the petition he was the undercover guy. conservative guy. wasn't serious what he was saying about. about 16 students were interviewed in 45 minutes. 11 out of the 16 signed the petition to listen in to ask -- to nullify the constitution when it comes to fox news and you say? >> i am not surprised by this at all. the left. >> 11 out of 16? >> academia culture and news media bunch of college kids? are you kidding me so far left. the results don't scare me but what scares me some of them with the exception of one kid there saying that's a bridge too far for me. you know, throwing out the constitution. >> bill: there were two students who walked away.

>> with those two exceptions everybody else seemed ready to throw the first amendment out of window. dangerous for america. >> bill: out of the 16 three students actually told the undercover guy you are out of line. >> of course, he would be out of line in fact if obviously he was a phony. he wasn't telling what he really thought. we don't know that those students are liberal. i mean just presume they are liberal. >> if they weren't they wouldn't be okay with it. >> bill: what would you presume they were if they are signing a petition to illegally listen in on your conversation. >> nothing very exciting there anyway as you well know. who knows what they are. they may be nothing. >> they may be nothing? >> they may be nothing. the fact is that you fight free speech >> you fight free speech with additional free speech, you don't try to silence anyone. >> we did this earlier, this insane statement by the university of pennsylvania, a teacher that ties in white supremacy for some prolife

people. when you get to the point where there isn't any ration ailty, and i think a lot of college campuses are right at that point, big schools. george mason is a pretty good test e mason is a pretty good test flush test te test test ...

... ... ... ...

... . .... ....... ...

... ... ... ...

... ... ...

... time for the tip of the day about me and david letterman. kennedy's lasts days is now the number one nonfiction children's book in the country. it's a beautiful book, and it's important that american kids learn about their country. kenne kennedy's last days teaches about the civil rights, the russian nuclear threat, the kennedy family and the assassination itself. it makes a great summer reading tome for them. also my three adult bestselles s

killing kennedy, killing linton and keep it pithy. o'reilly your talking points may be angry. our government seems to be out of control. from escondido, california. i totally disagree with you about james clapper. the congress people knew clapper could not answer their questions, because it would arm national security. and what's the big deal about compiling phone calls? anyone can read an address on the outside of an envelope. if you look inside that envelope that's a federal crime. that's what we're talking about here, the national security excuse cannot be used by law breaking. charlene from rock springs, wyoming. juan williams is the biggest kool-aid drinker on the planet. did nancy pelosi suddenly

retire? bob muller, outstanding fbi director, the fbi is a huge organization, muller can't know what his agents are doing at all times. that's amazingly generous of you, linda. director mueller was ordered to testify before air congressional committee about the irs investigation. and he said he didn't know who was heading it up? that was stunning. malibu, california, my 8-year-old son donated some of his share money to independence fund.org to help get wheelchairs for the vets. i-day-old him $25 would get him a picture of the presidents but he gave 35. john ambrose, woodridge, illinois. thanks for motivating me to donate to the independence fund. i'm glad thanks for helping out the vets. the tip of the day, cultivating

your opponents. last night i appeared on the letterman program. we had a good chat you and i. dave letterman was actually pleasant talking with you. not the usual snide behavior, i was shocked. over the years we have reached a lively but respectful relationship very often i reject folks who come across as mean spirited. al franken, i would never, never try to win him over he's not worth it. even though i gave letterman no quarter in the beginning, i did cultivate the relationship and now things are fine. some people are worth winning over. some are not. but there is an up side to day tant. that is up for us tonight. please check out the fox news factor website which is different from billo'reilly.com.

we'd like you to spout off from anywhere in the world. do not be vituperate. i have to phrase it if i want to be gram atticly correct. do not vituperate when writing the o'reilly factor. thanks for watching the ctor, i am bill o'reilly, remember, the spin stops here. >> it's wednesday june 19th. a murder investigation rocking the new england patriots.

one of their star players questioned after a body is found near his house. >> are you getting ready to drive to work this morning. there are frightening new reports about how your life would be in darreni-- could be . >> it's the 4th quarter that everyone will be talking about today. miami's explosive final minutes against the spurs keep fans so fired up the kwops were ca -- ce called. f "fox & friends first" starts now. >> good morning to everyone. welcome to "fox & friends first". thank you for joining us as you get ready to start your day. taking a look outside new york city. i am ainsley earhardt.

>> it is time for your top 5@5:00. we start with a fox news alert. overnight four american troops killed in an attack on bagram air base in afghanistan. the taliban taking responsibility for a rocket attack. the united states only confirming at this point the troops were killed by indirect fire. also overnight afghan president hamid karzai suspended security talks with the united states because he says he wants one-on-one talks with the taliban. he wants to lead the u.s. out because he claims the americans are using contradictory statements about the peace talks. another horrific case of captivity in ohio. a mentally disabled woman and her young daughter kept as slaves for two years.